|
|
|
‘Educate before you
vaccinate’
The Woodstock
Sentinel-Review
Christine Colebeck RPN -
Kitchener
Monday May 16,
2005 I am the mother of five healthy children and
one infant daughter died after adverse vaccine
reaction.
Before a vaccine was available for rubella, it
was considered only a mild disease. There was no public panic
during an outbreak and the majority of the population was
naturally immune to rubella through past exposure.
With
the advent of rubella vaccination, the cycle changed. The
majority of the population is no longer exposed to natural
rubella, and the vaccine immunity is not life-long. In fact,
the vaccine immunity is not 100 per cent effective at any
time.
Rubella is a disease that is very mild, often
showing limited or no symptoms in children. Rubella is a
disease that is of no risk to men. There really is no reason
to vaccinate children or men. The only potential risk of
rubella is when a woman contracts it during the early weeks of
pregnancy. Unfortunately, that is precisely when the rubella
vaccination (given at childhood) begins to wear off, when a
woman reaches child-bearing age. This really begs the
question, why? Why are we mass vaccinating an entire
population of children and men for a disease that is of no
consequence to them?
The answer is this. The rubella
vaccine is known to cause adverse reactions, such as causing
arthritis. These reactions are particularly high in women of
child-bearing age. So in fact, the very age group that this
vaccine is targeted for has the highest rate of risk from the
vaccine. Pregnant women cannot use the vaccine because the
vaccine itself is capable of causing the disease, since it is
a live vaccine.
Essentially we are vaccinating an entire
population that is not at risk from the disease, to hopefully
provide some type of protection for a group that is at risk of
disease. The potential for adverse vaccine reactions may be
slightly lower in children, but there is still a very real
risk of negative consequences from the vaccine.
To make
matters worse, there is no single rubella vaccine available in
Ontario so during this outbreak, we are giving
children-women-men a triple vaccine called MMR (Measles mumps
rubella) This significantly increases the risk, now injecting
three live vaccines.
I do not understand why we need to
vaccinate people for measles and mumps during a rubella
outbreak.
The measles vaccine carries the risk of causing
SSPE (encephalopathy) and can cause vaccine strain of measles.
Do we really want to risk getting measles (or brain injury)
while trying to prevent rubella?
None of these vaccines
are appropriately tested for safety or for their potential to
cause cancer. Yet we are expected to inject them into our
children, for a disease that is not even dangerous to them.
Why not just let our children catch natural rubella, so that
they gain life-long immunity to prevent them from catching
rubella during their child-bearing years?
I just question
how we can be told “the benefits outweigh the risks’’ for a
disease with zero risk and a vaccine with very real risks. I
also question if it is ethical, that we be asked to sacrifice
our healthy children, for the potential well being of others.
I
am appalled that people are suggesting forced
vaccination. I don’t think they seriously understand the
magnitude of that suggestion. The Canadian charter was not
built on ignorance, it is there for a reason so maybe think
twice before we throw it away.
We can be told that
statistics may show Congenital Rubella Syndrome has decreased
since the advent of vaccination, but has it really or did we
just broaden the diagnoses from CRS, to developmental delay?
Another important hidden factor in the decline of CRS is the
frequent use of therapeutic abortions by women who have been
exposed to rubella in early pregnancy.
What about all
those children injured by vaccines, or born with CRS caused by
vaccines? Who is taking accountability for these children?
I can tell you from experience...no one is.
Educate
before you vaccinate.
back
| |
|
